The American Spectator

At Large

(Page 2 of 2)

When the payments were first mooted it was suggested that they would encourage teenagers to become pregnant as the first step in settling down to a life of welfare dependency. However this prediction has not been born out: there were only 186 more claims by teenagers between 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Overall, 4,800 teenagers claimed the bonus in 2005-06, but older women were found to be increasingly giving birth. Claims by parents over the age of 40 increased from 9,906 to 15,873, and claims by parents aged 35-39 increased from 44,783 in 2004-05 to 55,350 in 2005-06.

p>Treasurer Peter Costello said when presenting the 2004 budget that families should have "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country." A spokesman for Costello's office says: br> /p>

The Government has offered a number of incentives, such as the baby bonus, substantial increases in the rates of family benefits and extra childcare places to help with the hurdles of raising a family.

Having a child can be costly and it is pleasing that this payment is helping thousands of families around Australia with these costs. If it brings about an increase in the fertility rate, that is a good thing.

br> The Australian baby bonus is not very large -- only a couple of months average income, and there may be other cultural factors at work. But in the light of Europe's present demographic crisis this result is highly significant. Demographic decline does not have to be irreversible. Will the countries of Western Europe take notice and act? One wonders if the British High Commission and the Canberra embassies of France, Germany, Italy and Spain have noticed and are sending home reports. Tax-cut incentives might be another was of getting the same result.

This is only a small step but it's a significant one. In one way, implementing a policy like this doesn't call for much political courage: electors in general like tax-cuts and government grants, and in comparison to the big-budget items the drain on the public purse is quite small.

In another way, however, it would call for a great deal of political courage in Western Europe if it were to be helpful and not harmful. The survival of national identity would be the major purpose of the exercise. To avoid being counter-productive, it would have to be given only to people who are an authentic part of the nation and its culture.

To give grants to unassailable and hostile immigrant communities as a reward for breeding more would produce the opposite result to that intended. There would have to be tests for people to qualify, emphatically not on the basis of race -- which would be both immoral as well as impracticable -- but on the basis of culture and values. This is of course desperately politically incorrect but it is practicable. Obviously a good deal of fine-tuning may be necessary.

At present I can't see any Western European government grasping that particular nettle (except possibly the French, who for all their fault have a streak of realism when the chips are down). But things could be changing quickly.

topics:
Religion, Immigration